Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1887-10-28
THE CHICAGO ANARCHISTS.
A Petition for a Writ Of Error
Presented in the United Stat tes
Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON, Oct 2l.-When the
United States Supreme Court assem-
bled to-day ten minutes after the US
ual hour, the court room was crowd
ed with people waiting anxiousiy to
hear the petition for writ OF error
in the cases of the Chicago Anarchists,
which it was known would be made
to the full Court in compliance with
Justice Harlan's order.
AS soon ga the candidates for adj
mission to the bar had been disposed
of, Gen. Pryor, Of counsel OF the con-
demned Anarchists, rose end address.
ed the Court in support OF the petl-
ton for a writ of error. After reclt-
ing briefly the history OF the case,
and stating that seven Of the prison
ers were now under sentence OF
death, Mr.. Pryor said he would call
the attention of the Court to only
two points which he relied upon TO
show that the case at the bar pres
ented Federal questions, and that
such questions empowered this
Court to take jurisdiction of it, and
to grant the writ of error prayed Tor
The first of these points related, he
said, to the jury by which the prison
ers were tried. The Legislature of
the State of Illinois passed in March,
1874. that is, after the adoption OF
the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, law to regulate and
govern the empanelment of juries in
the State courts.
By virtue of that law jury for
the trial of a criminal case might
be made up in part at least of Jurors
who formed an opinion with regard
to the guilt or innocense OF the per-
sons accused-jurors who were par
tial and prediudiced men. The law
made it possible to put into the jury
box men who formed an opinion as
to the prisoners's guilt which could
not be removed except by strong evil
dence. This he believed had been
done in the case under consideration.
aud the petitioners asserted that this
statute and the effect given to it In
the Courts below, had deprived them
of their rights, and was about to de-
prive them of their lives, without the
"due process of law" guaranteed by
the Federal Constitution.
"What is that statute, Mr.. Pryor?'
;non;red the Chief Justice.
Mr.. Pryor sent to the Chief Jus
tice and then read aloud that part of
the act of the Illinois Lei gslature,
approved March 18th. 1874, which
provides THAT it shall not he cause
of challenge that a juror has read
in the newspapers an account OF the
commission of the crime with which
the prisoner is charged if such shall
state on oath that be believes be can
render an impartial verdict according
to the law and evidence" and which
also provides that, in the trial of any
criminal cause, the fact thet a person
called as juror has formed an opin-
ion or impression based upon runner
or upon newspaper statements (a5ous
the truth of which he has expressed
no opinioD) shall not disquaify him
to serve as a juror in such case, if he
shall, upon oath, state that he be-
lieves he can fairly and impartiaiiy
render a verdict therein in accord
rnce with the lew and the evidence,
and the Court shall be satisfied of the
truth of such statement"
It appears on record, said Mr.. Pry-
or, that this statute was called In
question in the trial Court as repug-
nant to the provisions both OF the
Federal Constitution and Of the Con-
stitution of the State of Illinois; but
the court affirmed its constitutio ality
when the authority of decisions OF
the Illinois Supreme Court, and the
latter afterward sustained the judg-
ment. Mr. Pryor then read extracts
from the record to show that among
the talesmen in the trial Court there
were men who admitted that they
had read newspapers and formed an
opinion with regard to the case and
were, therefore, partial.
Mr.. Justice Miller-Was any one
of the jurors shown to have read
new spaper accounts, formed an opin-
ion, &C., as you describe!
Mr.Pryor replied that any man
was accepted as juror, notwith-
standing the fact that be had formed
an opinion, be thought that he
could render an impartial verdict on
the evidence.
Mr.. Justice Miler-Was any such
juror accep:ed-was there any such
man in the jury?
Mr.. Pryor-Two Of them, your
Honor, and one of them was accept
ed after the challenges of the defense
had been exhausted.
Counsel then read again extracts
from the record to show the extent
of the preposaessions and prejudlces
of particular juror, and the view
taken by the Court rs to his admissi-
bility. He was interrupted second
time by Mr.. Justice Miller, who ask
ed, WAS this man actually on the
jury-this man referred to in the col.
loquy which you have just read?"
Mr. Pryor-No, your Homer, but
Mr.. Justice Miller-Then this par
ticular man was not on the trial jury ?
Mr.. Pryor-No, your Honor, he
was not; but exactly the same ques'
tions were raised in the cases of men
who were.
Justice Miller said he asked for in.
formation because, in a case which
recently came before him in Missouri
similar objections Were urged to q
particular juror, and it cost him three
days study Of the record to find out
that the man whose case was thus
emphasized in the argument bad not
actually been member of the jury
at all